On Friday 05 August 2005 12:34, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote:
> > base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
> > supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today,
> > if patching fails the process
On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote:
> base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
> supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if
> patching fails the process doesn't abort.
About this, there are still problems about committing a ch
On Friday 29 July 2005 16:05, Dan Armak wrote:
> Anyway, the effective change would be to die if patching fails (and support
> patchlevels != 0), so my orig question stands.
epatch already takes care of failing, that's why I was thinking about that :)
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer
On Friday 29 July 2005 16:57, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote:
> > base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
> > supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today,
> > if patching fails the process do
On Friday 29 July 2005 15:56, Dan Armak wrote:
> base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
> supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if
> patching fails the process doesn't abort.
Why can't we just use epatch?
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pette
Hi all,
base.eclass (which inherited by many other eclasses) has an src_unpack
supporting patching from patchfiles listed in $PATCHES. However, today, if
patching fails the process doesn't abort. So I propose:
==
--- base.eclass 11 Jul 2005 15:08:06 - 1.27
+++ base.ecla
